Mahmud v Revenue and Customs (EXCISE DUTY TOBACCO : Hand rolling) [2016] UKFTT 662 (TC) (28 September 2016)

Mahmud v Revenue and Customs (EXCISE DUTY TOBACCO : Hand rolling) [2016] UKFTT 662 (TC) (28 September 2016)

The appellant acted dishonestly and deliberately in evading duty and tax by importing tobacco products above the allowance and attempting to clear customs without declaration. The penalty was properly imposed and correctly reduced for disclosure and cooperation; hardship and first offence are not valid grounds for further reduction.

Citation
[2016] UKFTT 662 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Hamzah Mahmud; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
28 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Final Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Excise Duty, Customs Duty, Civil Evasion Penalty, Importation of Tobacco Products, Dishonesty, Penalty Reduction
Tax Law Customs and Excise Excise Duty Customs Duty Civil Evasion Penalty Importation of Tobacco Products Dishonesty Penalty Reduction

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hamzah Mahmud

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant acted dishonestly in evading excise and customs duty by importing tobacco products above the personal allowance
  2. 2 Whether the penalties imposed were correct and properly reduced for disclosure and cooperation

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant acted dishonestly and deliberately in evading duty and tax by importing tobacco products above the allowance and attempting to clear customs without declaration. The penalty was properly imposed and correctly reduced for disclosure and cooperation; hardship and first offence are not valid grounds for further reduction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Penalties totalling £638 confirmed against the appellant